Marl Mining Activity and Negative Repercussions for Two Hillside Villages (Northern Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented an intriguing historical study concerning the eviction of two villages in Italy due to mining activities. I find the study's scope suitable for the journal Geosciences, as it delves into an issue typically overlooked by researchers in the field, thereby addressing a notable gap in knowledge. This aspect renders the work relevant to the preservation of memories within its area of study. However, there are certain points that the authors could enhance, which are outlined below:

 

The similarity checker indicates a mere 7% overlap with other digital databases, a negligible figure that further underscores the groundbreaking nature of the study put forth by the authors.

 

Authors are advised against duplicating expressions already present in the title within their keywords to optimize the article's visibility across academic research databases. Hence, the use of the keyword "mining activity" is deemed inappropriate.

 

The authors astutely highlight the industrial revolution as a pivotal factor reshaping humanity's interaction with raw materials and their utilization. Given its significance in underpinning research and elucidating shifts in human-mineral resource dynamics, including contemporary trends such as the circular economy initiatives, it is advisable to explore the following resources for further insights: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04435-9_34 and https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75680-2_26

 

In line 71, was the "÷" symbol intentionally used by the authors in "(1890÷1990)" for a particular purpose? This seems to be an erroneous application of the symbol.

 

The authors offer a compelling narrative on the historical context of subsidence issues linked to mining activities in Europe, the USA, and China. However, considering the international scope of the scientific journal Geosciences, it is advisable for the authors to broaden their bibliographic review to encompass Latin America, South America, Africa, the Middle East, and other regions of Asia beyond China. Such an expansion would enhance the relevance of their work and contribute to a more inclusive and decolonialized discussion.

 

Once more, the ÷ symbol is observed in the text within "(50÷40 Ma)" on line 149. I kindly request the authors to reconsider its appropriateness in this context.

 

Although previously referenced in the title and abstract, it is crucial for the section "2.1. Geology and geomorphology" to commence by explicitly stating that the studied region is situated in Italy and to provide a geographical context within Italy. This clarification will facilitate comprehension for readers from diverse global locations unfamiliar with the specific region examined by the authors. Alternatively, the authors may consider swapping the positions of the "2.1. Geology and geomorphology" section with the "2.2. Historical settings" section, wherein they provide a thorough presentation of the region to readers. This adjustment would offer a more comprehensive introduction to the studied area, facilitating a better understanding for readers.

 

In Figure 1, I encountered difficulty in discerning the significance of the thick blue lines in the legend. Are they intended to represent bodies of water? Additionally, I recommend that authors refrain from utilizing blue tones to denote rocks, as upon a cursory examination, readers might inadvertently confuse them with bodies of water.

 

Many figures utilized by the authors originate from third-party sources, albeit modified; however, reproduction in other scientific journals may necessitate authorization due to potential legal implications. Consequently, it is advisable for authors to provide documentation granting permission to reproduce images not sourced directly, or alternatively, to provide justification for their exclusion.

 

It's essential to review the Geosciences journal's guidelines regarding the formatting of foreign words. The authors frequently employ Italian expressions, which is appropriate, but they do not consistently differentiate them. To address this, it is recommended to utilize italics or quotation marks to denote foreign language expressions. The authors should consult the journal's guidelines to ensure proper highlighting of such expressions.

 

Figure 6 illustrates a historical document utilized as a database by the authors, yet it is not referenced within the manuscript's text. It is imperative that all figures are contextualized in the text prior to insertion. Similarly, the issue arises with Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.

 

On line 363, there is a topic followed by a period, but no corresponding text. This appears to be a minor formatting error that the authors should address.

 

What is the rationale behind the authors' decision to focus the geomorphological study on the last seventy years (as mentioned in lines 383-385)? Is this period chosen because it marks the beginning of available records? Clarifying this point in the section would enhance understanding.

 

Line 391 and then 399-401: I admit that I am unaware of the JEMA rule for footnotes. But I believe that they should not be inserted within the text. Therefore, the suggestion is that authors rewrite the target paragraph, including what would be mentioned as a footnote.

 

While it's conceivable that CNR IRPI represents the institutional affiliation of one of the authors, it's necessary to elucidate the acronym in its initial mention in the text (line 408). This ensures that the manuscript is self-contained and easily comprehensible without external references.

 

In Section "3.4 Geognostic investigation and geophysical survey," the authors opt to concentrate their analyses on Brusaschetto, deeming it representative of both study sites. However, the text lacks a description or argumentation regarding the similarities that justify this choice. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors revise the passage to elaborate on this matter, clarifying the basis for considering Brusaschetto as representative.

 

I find Figure 13a somewhat problematic due to numerous obstructions hindering the visualization of the depressed area. The presence of many tree branches and reflections of plants in the water renders the image unrepresentative. If an alternative image is available to replace 13a, it would be preferable; otherwise, retaining 13b might be a better option.

 

I'd like to inform the authors that both the "Materials and Methods" section and the "Results" section are marked with the number 3. This has led to a compromise in the numbering of all subsequent sections. Please correct the numbering accordingly.

 

I found the authors' introductory and methodological sections to be notably thorough, creating an expectation for substantial results. However, there appears to be a disconnect in the text. While "Section 3.1. Multidisciplinary investigation results" is adequately presented, offering relevant catalog sheets and photographic records, sections "3.2.1. Soil survey and aerial photo analysis" and "3.2.2. Geological investigations" lack sufficient information. The pedological survey yields fewer tangible results than anticipated, with limited analysis of photographs (the quality of the Figure 13a is notably poor). Additionally, the drilling campaign lacks detailed stratigraphic descriptions and fails to present the textural and structural features of rocks that are crucial for the forthcoming discussions.

 

Line 600 is only marked by the presence of a period. Please rectify this.

 

Author Response

The similarity checker indicates a mere 7% overlap with other digital databases, a negligible figure that further underscores the groundbreaking nature of the study put forth by the authors. Authors are advised against duplicating expressions already present in the title within their keywords to optimize the article's visibility across academic research databases. Hence, the use of the keyword "mining activity" is deemed inappropriate.

We have changed first key word as suggested.

In line 71, was the "÷" symbol intentionally used by the authors in "(1890÷1990)" for a particular purpose? This seems to be an erroneous application of the symbol.

Perfect, done.

 

The authors offer a compelling narrative on the historical context of subsidence issues linked to mining activities in Europe, the USA, and China. However, considering the international scope of the scientific journal Geosciences, it is advisable for the authors to broaden their bibliographic review to encompass Latin America, South America, Africa, the Middle East, and other regions of Asia beyond China. Such an expansion would enhance the relevance of their work and contribute to a more inclusive and decolonialized discussion.

In addition to the Italian case, the authors cited cases in Great Britain, Bosnia, Czech Rep., Poland USA, Australia, China and India. The authors have now added some information on Latin America and Africa. Thanks for the suggestion.

Once more, the ÷ symbol is observed in the text within "(50÷40 Ma)" on line 149. I kindly request the authors to reconsider its appropriateness in this context.

Ok ok

Although previously referenced in the title and abstract, it is crucial for the section "2.1. Geology and geomorphology" to commence by explicitly stating that the studied region is situated in Italy and to provide a geographical context within Italy. This clarification will facilitate comprehension for readers from diverse global locations unfamiliar with the specific region examined by the authors. Alternatively, the authors may consider swapping the positions of the "2.1. Geology and geomorphology" section with the "2.2. Historical settings" section, wherein they provide a thorough presentation of the region to readers. This adjustment would offer a more comprehensive introduction to the studied area, facilitating a better understanding for readers.

A few concepts have been inserted specifying the Italian context. Thank you.

In Figure 1, I encountered difficulty in discerning the significance of the thick blue lines in the legend. Are they intended to represent bodies of water? Additionally, I recommend that authors refrain from utilizing blue tones to denote rocks, as upon a cursory examination, readers might inadvertently confuse them with bodies of water.

In Figure 1, the only blue lines used delineate the course of the River Po, Italy's main river. Two blue lines indicating the river have been added in the legend. No blue tones have been used in the legend for the rocks.

Many figures utilized by the authors originate from third-party sources, albeit modified; however, reproduction in other scientific journals may necessitate authorization due to potential legal implications. Consequently, it is advisable for authors to provide documentation granting permission to reproduce images not sourced directly, or alternatively, to provide justification for their exclusion.

The photographs in figures 4, 5, 12b, 12c, 12d and 13 are part of the CNR IRPI archive. The author is unknown, but for the images the protection rights for the work expire 70 years after the author's death, and here we are over a century.

It's essential to review the Geosciences journal's guidelines regarding the formatting of foreign words. The authors frequently employ Italian expressions, which is appropriate, but they do not consistently differentiate them. To address this, it is recommended to utilize italics or quotation marks to denote foreign language expressions. The authors should consult the journal's guidelines to ensure proper highlighting of such expressions.

The authors used quotation marks for Italian terms: obviously they didn’t used quotation marks for toponyms because are geographical names.

Figure 6 illustrates a historical document utilized as a database by the authors, yet it is not referenced within the manuscript's text. It is imperative that all figures are contextualized in the text prior to insertion. Similarly, the issue arises with Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.

Thank you. We have included the forgotten references. 

On line 363, there is a topic followed by a period, but no corresponding text. This appears to be a minor formatting error that the authors should address.

Thank you, it has been duly deleted.

What is the rationale behind the authors' decision to focus the geomorphological study on the last seventy years (as mentioned in lines 383-385)? Is this period chosen because it marks the beginning of available records? Clarifying this point in the section would enhance understanding.

Evolution of hill slopes has been analysed for the last seventy years because is the period in which we have multi-temporal aerial images (from 1954).

Line 391 and then 399-401: I admit that I am unaware of the JEMA rule for footnotes. But I believe that they should not be inserted within the text. Therefore, the suggestion is that authors rewrite the target paragraph, including what would be mentioned as a footnote.

OK, we have followed the advice and inserted the sentence in the text. 

While it's conceivable that CNR IRPI represents the institutional affiliation of one of the authors, it's necessary to elucidate the acronym in its initial mention in the text (line 408). This ensures that the manuscript is self-contained and easily comprehensible without external references.

Correct. We have developed the acronym.

In Section "3.4 Geognostic investigation and geophysical survey," the authors opt to concentrate their analyses on Brusaschetto, deeming it representative of both study sites. However, the text lacks a description or argumentation regarding the similarities that justify this choice. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors revise the passage to elaborate on this matter, clarifying the basis for considering Brusaschetto as representative.

Thank you for the observation. The authors have inserted some new parts.

 

 

I find Figure 13a somewhat problematic due to numerous obstructions hindering the visualization of the depressed area. The presence of many tree branches and reflections of plants in the water renders the image unrepresentative. If an alternative image is available to replace 13a, it would be preferable; otherwise, retaining 13b might be a better option.

Figure 13a has been changed and Figure 13c inserted, which further clarifies everything.

I'd like to inform the authors that both the "Materials and Methods" section and the "Results" section are marked with the number 3. This has led to a compromise in the numbering of all subsequent sections. Please correct the numbering accordingly.

OK, perfect. Correct. 

I found the authors' introductory and methodological sections to be notably thorough, creating an expectation for substantial results. However, there appears to be a disconnect in the text. While "Section 3.1. Multidisciplinary investigation results" is adequately presented, offering relevant catalog sheets and photographic records, sections "3.2.1. Soil survey and aerial photo analysis" and "3.2.2. Geological investigations" lack sufficient information. The pedological survey yields fewer tangible results than anticipated, with limited analysis of photographs (the quality of the Figure 13a is notably poor). Additionally, the drilling campaign lacks detailed stratigraphic descriptions and fails to present the textural and structural features of rocks that are crucial for the forthcoming discussions.

We took better care of the deficient parts. Thank you for your suggestion.

Line 600 is only marked by the presence of a period. Please rectify this.

OK, perfect. Correct. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The paper is a very interesting one, both through the case studies considered but also through the research approach.

For me, the subject is a very familiar one, as I live in a region where hard coal has been extracted from underground for over 160 years, and where we have faced, are facing and will face similar problems (as you well point out in the paper, subsidence is an often-unpredictable phenomenon, which can manifest slowly over time or suddenly and which, beyond the effects on the natural or anthropogenic environment, can also lead to loss of human life).

I appreciate the scale of the research effort carried out by studying an impressive number of documents from the archives, covering more than 130 years, supplemented by field investigations covering another 20 years.

The research results and the conclusions are presented clearly and logically, and support the (unwanted) connection between the mining activity carried out in the area and the surface phenomena that ultimately led to the destruction and abandonment of the two villages.

It is also appreciated that, without hesitation, you make clear references to bad management and urban planning decisions, which fall to the authorities. Presumably, based on current laws, those who lived in the area or their descendants should benefit from some reparative and compensatory measures.

Overall, I congratulate you on your paper and wish you much success in future research. However, there are also a few observations on the paper:

- Subparagraph 2.3 – replace cultivation with extraction (or excavation);

- Refer figs. 6 – 9 and 13 in the text (figs. 7 – 9 are referred in the appendix only, while 6 and 13 no were);

- Fig. 10 – try to improve the written part and the legend;

- Fig. 11 – seems a bit blurry.

Also, there are a few typing errors:

- Line 151 – CaCO3 – use subscript;

- Line 276 – after effects;

- Line 286 – indent;

- Line 363 – remove dot;

- Line 421 – italic;

- Line 459 – I believe this is paragraph (chapter) 4 (also correct subsequent subparagraphs);

- Line 481 – italic, without indent;

- Line 509 – delete space;

- Line 561 – delete space;

- Line 562 – paragraph 5 (Discussion);

- Line 600 – delete space;

- Line 618 – paragraph 6 (Conclusions).

It would be best to verify the entire document for such small typing errors.

In view of the above, I will recommend to the editors to publish your paper after making the mentioned corrections.

Best regards!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the above comments.

Author Response

Overall, I congratulate you on your paper and wish you much success in future research.

However, there are also a few observations on the paper:

- Subparagraph 2.3 – replace cultivation with extraction (or excavation);

OK, corrected

- Refer figs. 6 – 9 and 13 in the text (figs. 7 – 9 are referred in the appendix only, while 6 and 13 no were);

All figures are regularly mentioned in the text just before the figure is inserted.

- Fig. 10 – try to improve the written part and the legend;

-           Fig. 11 – seems a bit blurry.

It is a map resulting from the analysis made on the ground with the traces of the extensions. Fortunately is full of data and there is no way to make it any clearer.

Also, there are a few typing errors:

-           Line 151 – CaCO3 – use subscript; OK corrected

-           Line 276 – after effects; OK corrected

-           Line 286 – indent; OK corrected

-           Line 363 – remove dot; OK corrected

- Line 421 – italic; OK

- Line 459 – I believe this is paragraph (chapter) 4 (also correct subsequent subparagraphs); OK

-           Line 481 – italic, without indent; OK

-           Line 509 – delete space; OK

-           Line 561 – delete space; OK

-           Line 562 – paragraph 5 (Discussion); OK

-           Line 600 – delete space; OK

-           Line 618 – paragraph 6 (Conclusions). OK

It would be best to verify the entire document for such small typing errors.

In view of the above, I will recommend to the editors to publish your paper after making the mentioned corrections.

Best regards! Good sounds

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

·         Abstract: It should be improved to highlight the research done in the manuscript.

·       I think the introduction details a literature review, mainly on subsidence impacts, but it is not defined the lack of knowledge and what part could be covered by the manuscript. The aim of the study should also be defined in this section

·         The quality of Figure 1 should be improved. Is it your own figure or is it based on an existing one? If it was the case it should be mentioned.

·         Revise the format of the document. For instance, the way of citing in line 241, it should include the name of the authors for cite 32, or line 600.

·         The discussion section should be improved. I think there is a lot of information to obtain a richer discussion of the study done. I would also recommend avoiding scientifically unrigorous sentences such as line 602, especially in a discussion section. I would also recommend including references if needed to back your points made.

·         The conclusions should be improved by focusing on the research done.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think it is fine

Author Response

Abstract: It should be improved to highlight the research done in the manuscript.

The abstract has been improved.

I think the introduction details a literature review, mainly on subsidence impacts, but it is not defined the lack of knowledge and what part could be covered by the manuscript. The aim of the study should also be defined in this section.

Yes, done.

 The quality of Figure 1 should be improved. Is it your own figure or is it based on an existing one? If it was the case it should be mentioned.

Yes, thank you for the suggestion.

Revise the format of the document. For instance, the way of citing in line 241, it should include the name of the authors for cite 32, or line 600.

OK thanks

• The discussion section should be improved. I think there is a lot of information to obtain a richer discussion of the study done. I would also recommend avoiding scientifically unrigorous sentences such as line 602, especially in a discussion section. I would also recommend including references if needed to back your points made.

OK, thanks. The DISCUSSION has been expanded and improved. The authors believe that there is nothing unscientific about the population being terrorised by explosions. It was a true fact that in a scientific work cannot be left out.

• The conclusions should be improved by focusing on the research done.

Yes, conclusions have been improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made a diligent attempt to address all the topics raised in the initial review phase, demonstrating commendable effort. Nevertheless, there are still certain aspects that require updating to meet the publication standards for acceptance.

 

The term "Piedmont" persists in both the title and keywords, contrary to the recommendation provided during the initial peer review stage. Keywords should avoid repeating expressions already present in the title. 

 

The title proposed by the authors is quite broad in addressing the consequences of "Marl mining activity." However, the term "related consequences" lacks specificity, making it difficult for readers to discern the article's focus, which is essential for an effective title. Hence, the authors are advised to reconsider the title of the article.

 

The authors astutely highlight the industrial revolution as a pivotal factor reshaping humanity's interaction with raw materials and their utilization. Given its significance in supporting research and elucidating shifts in human and mineral resource dynamics, including modern trends like circular economy initiatives, it is recommended to conduct bibliographic investigations that further explore these themes in the proposed studies.

 

In lines 106 and 113, the citations included the years of publication, which is not necessary in MDPI journals.

 

If the symbol % was used consistently, there is no need to specify "92 percent" in line 178.

 

Figure 1 has been enhanced, yet there are remaining key issues to address. Recent Holocene and Pleistocene sedimentary deposits should avoid blue colors, as conventionally these are reserved for depicting water networks. Traditionally, shades of yellow are used for representing this category of sedimentary materials.

 

The remaining changes made are pertinent and have enhanced the manuscript.

Author Response

We answer point by point.
The term Piedmont was removed from the title and remained in the keywords.
The title was changed by inserting the required specificity 'Negative repercussions' for the two villages.
For the industrial revolution, some important works have been inserted.
In lines 106 and 113, the years of the publications were deleted.
In line 178, the referee's advice was also followed.
Figure 1 has remained the same: sedimentary deposits in Italian geological maps have always used light blue colours. This map drawn up by ARPA Piemonte follows the model of the geological maps and cannot be changed.
We thank our colleague very much for the further review and send our best regards.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have done all the modifications requested.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is fine, with just minor modifications required

Author Response

We thank our colleague very much for the further review and send our best regards.